www.buildingsandcities.org/insights/commentaries/co-ordinate-built-environment-research.html

Why a coordinated programme of built environment research needs to be based on the public good

Gavin Killip and Kate Simpson (Nottingham Trent University) propose a coordinated research programme of field trials to create a focus for iterative learning about outcomes in the built environment, for the public good. They explain why a transdisciplinary programme is needed and seven key characteristics of the programme are proposed.

Grand challenge research for the built environment

Achieving a more sustainable built environment is a complex, multi-level, multi-dimensional 'grand challenge' that requires concerted efforts by multiple actors to be successfully addressed (Voegtlin et al. 2022). Research and policy leaders highlight the intractability and wickedness of grand challenges, where 'solutions' are imperfect, incomplete, mutable, contested and contingent. The research task is therefore to help find 'good enough' ways forward, taking account of multiple uncertainties. Instead of seeking an ideal optimisation, we need to appraise dynamic, real-world actions in context. However, most research is not like this. There are many organisational and disciplinary barriers to developing a better understanding of the questions that society is grappling with (Cole 2024).

Technology pathways require careful and critical evaluation to minimise unintended consequences, such as design-performance gaps, user dissatisfaction and product waste. Yet, technologies and interventions are often prescribed for a range of contexts and users without a robust, open way of evaluating success and satisfaction. There is a danger that the approach is too deterministic (based on unattested assumptions about technology performance and outcomes), or too narrow (ignoring possible risks that fall outside conventional disciplinary framings).

Solutions must work for the people living and working within each place. A focus on outcomes would mean switching attention to building performance rather than design intent. Climate policy debates can be biased toward carbon reduction without enough consideration of wider impacts, such as emissions beyond carbon, the reality of the production of the materials, environmental degradation or indoor environmental quality (Bordass 2020).

Outcomes are likely to vary over time and scale. Unavoidable climate change intensifies challenges for occupant health and comfort, and the ability of the built environment to offer shelter, safety and security. Working across geographic scales and boundaries is essential to manage dynamic risks such as flooding and overheating, and to achieve benefits for biodiversity, water conservation and land-use management.

Past practice is an imperfect guide to future needs, so critical thinking and open information sharing will need to become more normal. The first step is a values-led commitment to learning and sharing, particularly from lessons when things do not work out as expected. To be effective, this enterprise needs the ongoing engagement of building users, construction supply chains and innovators applying new technology and business models to reconfigure services. Multiple forms of feedback are needed to realise the glimmers of hope where education, practice and research come together to creatively and collaboratively work toward a shared vision (Bordass & Leaman 2012).

A co-ordinated programme of field trials

To achieve a closer coordination of research, education, policy and practice, we propose a programme of field trials, where findings from early rounds are analysed and used to inform the development of future rounds. A programme would ideally have the following seven broad characteristics.

First, it should be socio-technical and trans-disciplinary in nature. For interventions to be effective they need to be embedded into the social practice of diverse groups (building occupants, construction supply chain actors and others). Involving non-academic sector actors in setting research challenges (trans- rather than inter-disciplinarity) may broaden the research scope in beneficial ways.

Second, the focus needs to be on learning by testing robust, "good enough" practices and products in real life. The quality of outcomes - and what has shaped them - needs to be questioned and understood, with triangulation of accumulated evidence leading to recommendations. The aim should be to identify processes and interventions that meet multiple objectives to some degree, within the constraints of technology, time, money, and understanding. Outcomes-related topics include usability, maintenance, climate resilience, occupant comfort, indoor environment quality, energy use and associated greenhouse gas emissions.

Third, research should be iterative, innovative and ongoing. Feedback and learning should be guiding principles of a research programme, so that lessons from early rounds of activity can be analysed and fed into the design of later phases. Incremental improvements to existing approaches should be complemented with wholly innovative ideas, and generalisable learning should be drawn from both.

Fourth, the remit should be to investigate critically all relevant and allied systems. While some sector actors have understandably narrow interests (e.g. in specific technology, and ideally its usability) the focus of field trials should also be broad and integrative, examining individual system elements within the whole. Systems should be broadly defined (technological, social, policy-led, educational, economic etc). Systems in interaction with each other ('systems of systems') are valid topics of investigation.

Fifth, it should engage with policy across multiple scales and domains. The policy context frames economic activity in the built environment to a large extent, but policy effectiveness is uneven and relatively untested (Wade et al. 2024). At the same time, policy recommendations from industry or academic research are often ignored by policy decision-makers. Nonetheless, there are some positive precedents of research informing policy, including the 'what works' network, commissioned by the UK government (HM Government, 2018).

Sixth, to be effective, communication is key. Peer-reviewed evidence will need to be supplemented with open-access digests of information, carefully tailored for specific audiences and their needs using all suitable media. Collaboration across existing organisations, networks and conferences can help facilitate dissemination.

Finally, such a programme should be managed and conducted for societal benefit, independently of vested interests. While individual sector actors have a valid role to play, a way needs to be found of guarding against narrow vested interests becoming too powerful. The goals, direction and evolving priorities of a coordinated programme need to be decided on behalf of society at large, informed by relevant expertise and accountable through democratic representation. The governance of the programme should be independent and evidence-based, working with sector actors, not for them.

Programme governance for public benefit

This outline of a coordinated programme of field trials places the public good at the centre of research on the grand challenge of climate change in the built environment. Many nations have government energy agencies and other bodies to conduct some of this work. Switzerland, for instance, has historical examples of cross-sectoral programmes that engaged actors across research, policy, practice and education (Kohler and Meier 2022). Universities, industry and user communities all have roles to play in creating, conducting and learning from such a coordinated programme of work. Evaluating what is delivered will ultimately save money, and possibly lives, as we move toward continually improved solutions.

Many detailed questions remain, of which we highlight three here: the size of the programme, its funding and its governance. How much, and what types of research, are needed? A balance needs to be found between narrow and broad topics; between zooming in on detail and highlighting patterns in culture and practice. In terms of orders of magnitude, a programme costing hundreds of millions of pounds per year seems appropriate, equivalent to roughly 0.1% of industry turnover. How much resource should be allocated to new data collection and analysis? How much should go to synthesis and communication of previous learning, including through education and training? Some public funding is needed to secure the programme's independence of vested interests, but public funding is prone to sudden cuts. Could private investment (for example via an industry levy) add funds and durability without compromising the public benefit? The governance and leadership of the programme both need to be strong for it to remain effective and relevant as the context inevitably changes. A multi-sectoral board needs to reflect a broad range of stakeholders, overseeing an experienced executive team to coordinate the programme.

References

Bordass, B. (2020). Metrics for energy performance in operation: the fallacy of single indicators. Buildings and Cities, 1(1), pp. 260-276. https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.35

Bordass, B. & Leaman, A. (2012). A new professionalism: remedy or fantasy? Building Research & Information, 41(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2012.750572

Cole, R. (2024). Research in a Rapidly Changing and Increasingly Uncertain World. [Commentary]. Buildings and Cities.  https://www.buildingsandcities.org/insights/commentaries/research-changing-uncertain-world.html

HM Government (2018) The What Works Network: Five Years On. London: What Works Network. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-what-works-network-five-years-on

Kohler, N. & Meier, K. (2022). Lessons from the Swiss Impulse Programme. [Commentary]. Buildings and Cities. https://www.buildingsandcities.org/insights/commentaries/lessons-swiss-impulse.html

Voegtlin, C., Scherer, A.G., Stahl, G.K. & Hawn, O. (2022), Grand Societal Challenges and Responsible Innovation. Journal of Management Studies, 59: 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12785

Wade, F., Britton, J. & Webb, J. (2024). Credible and comprehensive? Comparing policy mixes for local energy systems in England, Scotland and Wales. Energy Research & Social Science 110: 103413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103413

Previous article

Integrating Nature into Cities

Next article

The Challenge of Research Prioritisation